Don`t Ask, Don`t Tell

PART TWO: TOPICS IN LGBT HISTORY
Douglas Crimp, "How to Have Promiscuity in an Epidemic," October 43 (Winter
1987): 237-71; Paula Treichler, How to Have Theory in an Epidemic: Cultural
Chronicles of AIDS (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1999); and the docu ­
mentary How to Survive a Plague (David France, director / producer, 2012).
4, Cindy Patton and Janise Kelly, Making It: A Woman 's Guide to Sex in till'
Age of AIDS (Ithaca, NY: Firebrand, 1987).
5, While many of the sources cited he"!.' speak to this point (see, e.g" Brier,
Infectious Ideas; Cohen, Boundaries of Blackness; and Treichler, How to Have Theory
in an Epidemic), the scholar who has made the most sustained and developed
case for this kind of analysis is Paul Farmer. See, for example, his Infections nut!
Inequalities: The Modern Plagues (Berkeley: Urn versity of California Press, 200J) ,
6 On ACT UP, see Deborah B, Gould, Moving Politics: Emotion and A C I
UP 's Fight against AIDS (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009); and tlw
ACT UP Oral History Project, http://www,actuporalhistory,org/ , accessed
July 13, 2013.
7, The N ational Library of Medicine has put much of Koop's AIDS archi vI'
online, See U.S. National Library of Medicine, http:/ / profiles.nlm,nih.gov / p:,
/ retrieve / Narrative/ QQ/ p-nid / 871, accessed July 15,2013.
8, See Brier, Infectious Ideas, chap. 3, for more details,
9, See Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United Stat(' ~ ,
http: // www.siecus .org / index.cfm?fuseaction=Page, ViewPage&PageID
1160, accessed July 20, 2013.
1(;. See the epilogue in Brier, Infectious Ideas; and Mandisa Mbali, SOlllil
African AIDS Activism and Global Health Politics (New York: Palgrave Macmill,ll1 ,
201 3).
.. "
" Do n' t A sk, Do n' t Tell"
The Politics of Mil itary Change
:1
I'
III
"
"
AARON
BELKIN
-me issue of gays and lesbians in the military, much in
I the news in the first decades of the twenty-first
century, opens up historical questions about changing attitudes tow ard
same-sex sexuality and the p rocess of policy evolution. On September
20, 2011, President Barack Obama, as w ell as the leaders of the U.S.
military, signed a document certifying that the armed forces w ere ready
to allow gay men and lesbians to serve openly. Certification revoked
the law that was know n as "don't ask, don't tell" (DADT), allowing
gay and lesbian troops to utter the words "I am gay" without faCing the
risk of losing their jobs. The m arch toward equality had taken a long
time- 2 33 years to be exact-since historical records indicate that the
fi rst discharge of a presumably homosexual soldier occurred in 1778,
when General George Washington drummed a member of the Conti­
nental Army out of Valley Forge for having engaged in sodomy w ith
another man.!
Changing Pol i cy on Gay and Lesbian
Mil i tary Personnel
,Ii
j· i
jI
I, !
J;II
11\1:; :
[I
iI!! ~ .
Ii
'j
"i
The w ays in w hich policy on gay and lesbian military
personnel has changed over time offe r one w ay that studen ts can see
how <l ttitud cs toward sam c-se x sex ua lity have evolved, sometimes in
,In in con s is ten t m<l nn er , Ili s to ri,l l1 S h ;lv(' not becn able to d etermi ne,
w ilh pr('ci:-. ioll, ho w JTl ,lI1 Y f; ,l ~ ,lilt! II, ... hi,lll o., ('I'\' icv I11 l' m b l' rs the milit il ry
'I
1'1
PART TWO: TOPICS IN LGBT HISTORY
fired between 1778 and 2011, but scholars estimate that between the
end of the Second World War and the revocation of DADT, the military
discharged approximately one hundred thousand service members for
being gay.2 During that time, the rules governing sexual orientation
and military service were complex. Some rules punished service mem­
bers simply for having a gay or lesbian identity. Other rules punished
them for engaging in gay sex. And yet other rules punished them for
3
having a gay or lesbian identity and engaging in sexual conduct. TIus
confusing situation provides a useful way to help students see how
distinctions between sexual behavior and sexual identity play out in
U.5. society.
There were other inconsistencies as well. In some eras, the military
enforced its rules rigorously and fired large numbers of gay and lesbian
military personnel. In other eras, not only did the military fail to enforce
its own rules, but commanders forced gay and lesbian troops to remain
in service even if they wanted to be discharged. In some eras, the rules
governing sexual orientation and military service were spelled out in
Pentagon regulations, meaning that the president (as commander in
chief) had the authority to rewrite them without consulting Congress.
In other eras, the rules were spelled out in a statute, meaning that only
Congress or the federal courts could change them.
When Bill Clinton became president in 1993, the Pentagon's ban was
formalized in regulations, not in law, so he had the authority to change
the rules. As a candidate for preSident, Clinton had promised to lift th e
military's ban if elected, and after he took office he tried to persuade the
Pentagon to allow gays and lesbians to serve openly. He was opposed,
however, by a powerful coalition of military leaders and a large, veto­
proof majority of Democratic and Republican senators, who said that if
Clinton changed the rules Congress would pass a law restoring the old
order. Clinton, the military. and Congress decided to compromise, and
DADT was the result. According to the DADT law that Congress passed
and Clinton signed in 1993, gay and lesbian troops would be allowed In
remain in the military but only if they never acknowledged their sexll :) I
orientation to anyone and never engaged in same-sex sexual condu cl.
This compromise policy provides an opportunity to teach students abol! 1
the complex forces that shape legislation in the U.s. political system.
Clinton was ahead of his time in trying to compel the militarY III
allow gay and lesbian troops to serve openly. N o president ha d evv i
spent political capital trying to improve the li ves o( ga y men and lesb i.1 n '"
Belk i n / "Don't Ask, Don 't Tell"
and no president had even gone so far as to discuss gay and lesbian
people in respectful, matter-of-fact ways. There were no openly gay
characters on television and very few in the movies. Only a minority of
the public supported gay rights, and even moderate politicians felt free
to say viciously homophobic things in public. It was in this context that
Clinton tried and failed to lift the military's ban. Even though he had
the authority to rewrite the Pentagon's rules, neither the military nor
the public seemed ready for the change.
Between 1993 and 2010, advocates waged an intense campaign to
repeal DADT, and Congress finally passed a law in December 2010
authorizing the president and Pentagon leaders to lift the ban once they
determined that the military was ready to allow gay and lesbian troops
to serve openly. That determination, as noted above, occurred on Sep­
tember 20, 2011, and as a result, the Pentagon no longer has the authority
to fire service members for being gay. The repeal of DADT is an excellent
example of the ways in which the gay and lesbian movement succeeded
in bringing about an important change in U.S. policy.
What Don't Ask, Don't Tell Means for U.S. History
At least four aspects of DADT, as well as the struggle
to repeal it, might warrant consideration in high school and undergrad­
uate college courses on U.s. history and politics. First, military discrim­
ination against gays and lesbians has echoed but also differed from
discrimination against other minorities. For many years, the military
banned racial minorities, as well as women, from serving in the armed
forces on an equal basis with white heterosexual men. And the political
debates surrounding different types of discrimination have sounded
somewhat similar. For example, in the 1940s, opponents of racial inte­
gration said that white enlisted personnel would refuse to follow orders
issued by African American commanders. In the 1980s, opponents of
gender integration insisted that male service members would fail to
respect female officers. And during the 1993 d ebates over President
Clinton's attempt to lift the Pentagon's gay ban, opponents said that
heterosexual troops would not follow the orders of gay and lesbian of­
ficers. Anoth er comnlon feature of conversations about military d is­
crimination is th.l t l':)ci<l 1 min oriti es, w omen, and gays and lesbians
(grou ps lh ,l l, of \11I11." " ' \vl' rl.lp) a ll militari zed themselves an d portrayed
th l' US. ,)I' llll'\l llllll • .I ' ,I 110hl\, i nslillilinn ,1S pMt o f th ei r C.1 Sl' (Ill' wh y
PART TWO: TOPICS IN LGBT HISTORY
they should be allowed to serve. 4 All that said, racism, sexism, and
homophobia are distinct phenomena, and the military experiences of
people of color, women, and gays and lesbians have not been the same.
Students might consider the similarities and differences among these
different struggles, using the story of inclusion in the military as a case
study.
Second, the case of gays and lesbians in the military makes clear that
law and practice are not always consistent. In one form or another,
various rules required the military to discharge gay and lesbian troops
for most of the last century. Nevertheless, the military started firing gay
service members more than a century before any rules on the subject
were written or enacted. Margot Canaday, in her book The Straight
State, has shown how military policy shifted from targeting only public
or violent same-sex sexual behavior before the Second World War to
trying to ferret out those with "homosexual tendencies " during and
after the war. s And, even after rules requiring the discharge of gay
troops took effect, the military sometimes allowed or even forced gays
and lesbians to serve-hence violating its own rules-during wartime,
when troops were in short supply. As Marilyn E. Hegarty's essay in
this volume points out, gay and lesbian military personnel during the
Second World War often were tolerated, yet they faced discharge after
the war. 6 Students might consider what forces came into play in differ­
ent periods that either tolerated or targeted those participating in same­
sex sexual acts or claiming a gay or lesbian identity.
Third, the march toward equality occurred in small steps, not all at
once, and not all policy changes were for the better. The compromise of
DADT made things worse for gay and lesbian military personnel in
some ways. Not only did gay and lesbian troops have to hide their iden­
tities, but in fact the annual discharge rate of those troops increased
after DADT was enacted. Even the 2011 repeal of DADT was a partisl
rather than total victory because the m ilitary still bans transgender
troops from serving and because heterosexual troops received more
military benefits, such as housing and health care for their husbands and
wives, than their gay and lesbian colleagues. Following the Supreme
Court's 2013 ruling invalidating a section of the Defense of Marris g
Act, gay and lesbian military spouses began to receive the same benefits
as heterosexual spouses.
Finally, DADT repeal is an important case stud y of the relati onshi p
among public opinion, scientific da ta, and poli CY , Sll ~ i, 1I -.cic nlists hild
Belkin / " Don ' t Ask, Don't Tell "
Sailor reunited with her fiancee, December 21, 20 11, followin g a three-month deployment
in the Caribbean (photograph by Joshu a Mann, US Navy News Service)
long understood that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would
not harm the military. And solid majorities of the public supported al­
lowing gay and lesbian troops to serve openly. Nevertheless, there was
no real chance of repealing DADT while George W. Bush was president.
Even after Barack Obama became president, efforts to repeal DADT
almost failed because it was difficult for the White House to convince at
least sixty sena tors to support repeaL The story of the repeal of DADT
helps students to see that even when data suggest that a certain policy
change would be beneficial, and the public supports that change, rational
and popular change might not p revail immediately. Politics, in the
broadest sense of the term, can matter as much or m ore than data and
popular support.
Instructors w ho wish to include discussions of gays and lesbians
in the military in their courses are encouraged to consult two helpful
sources. The 1) 1\1)'1' ll il linc diltilbase maintain ed by th e Stanford Uni ­
verSity Lil W S~ hOll l 1111 Ill d \' ... Il ll1 11 C I,(lli S p rimil ry documents rcicvilnt to
tlw lopi c: hil I'
dlll\ll ' l w . ~ I"lli{ln l , l'd u / , I\ nd Ilw pub li c,lli oll s <;~'c li () 11
11.1
i
t
PAR T TWO : TOPICS IN LGBT HISTORY
i'
of the Palm Center think tank's website includes a large number of social
science studies about gay and lesbian troops: http: // www.palmcenter
.org / publications / recent. For a history of DADT, see Nathaniel Frank's
definitive book Unfriendly Fire, and for a discussion about the campaign
to repeal DADT, see my e-book How We Won?
NOTES
Randy Shilts, Conduct Unbecoming: Cays and Lesbians in the U.S. Military
(New York: Ballantine Books, 1994)·
2. Allan Berube, Coming Out under Fire: The History of Cay Men and Women
in World War II (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2010).
3. Janet Halley, Don't: A Cuide to the Military 's Anti-gay Policy (Durham,
NC: Duke University Press, 1999)·
4. Aaron Belkin, Bring Me Men: Military Masculinity and the Benign FQI;:ade of
American Empire, 1998 - 2001 (New York: Columbia University Press, 2 0 12).
5. Margot Canaday, The Straight State: Sexuality and Citizenship in Twentieth­
Century America (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2009).
6. Also see Berube, Coming Out under Fire; and Leisa D. Meyer, Creating CI
Jan e: Sexuality and Power in the Wom en's Army Corps during World Wa r II (New
York: Columbia University Press, 1998), for a broader discussion of gay and
lesbian troops during the Second World War.
7. Nathaniel Frank, Unfriendly Fire: How the Cay Ban Undermines the Military
and Weakens America (New York: St. Martin's, 2010); Aaron Belkin, How We Won:
Progressive Lesso11s from the Repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Te/l" (New York: Huffing­
ton Post Media Group, 2011).
1.
-
1' 04
I'
1"1
Tea chin g
Same-S ex M arri age
as U .S. History
I
ilil l
' I:
il
~
Ii
SHANNON
,r!
WEBER
ontemporary battles in the United States over the "hot-button" issue of same-sex marriage might lead
us to believe that the fight for marriage equality is a fairly recent phe­
nomenon. However, marriage has been a topiC of discussion and per­
sonal yearning for many gay and lesbian people for at least the past
sixty years, and forms of what could be described as same-sex marriage
have been occurring for centuries. For example, on June 13, 1821, the En­
glish noblewoman and diarist Anne Lister wrote of her lover, Mariana
Belcombe, "She is my wife in honor and in love and why not acknowl­
edge her [as] such openly and at once?"! The two women even ex­
changed rings, although Mariana's dutiful marriage to a man brought
much heartache and complication to her relationship with Anne.
Incorporating h istorical documents into the classroom can be a
particularly engaging way to show students the day-to-day concerns of
ordinary people from history, and so including snippets from Anne
Lister's diary would be an instructive way to p ersonalize same-sex
marriage history for students. Through the example of Anne's life, we
can see that the issue of same-sex marriage is not an ahistorical concern
that surfaced in the early twenty-first cen tury. It is an issue that has
deeper roots in An glo-American history, even in historical contexts in
which the id cC'l of pu rsu in g same-sex marriage as a matter of equality
und e r tilt' I.) W W,),; ..,\.\ 1r'Cl'ly thin kabl e. The inclusion of the history of
Si1 m c -s(.'\ 111.11 1101 ); 1' 111 gt ' Iw r ,11 d iscuss inll s C'lbou t mC'l rri a)?;c (>Il abl es
C
l'